Stockton water districts head into battle over New Melones

An 8-year-old lawsuit against the United States government for water promised to the Stockton area but only occasionally delivered may be nearing its culmination.

Alex Breitler

An 8-year-old lawsuit against the United States government for water promised to the Stockton area but only occasionally delivered may be nearing its culmination.

And the battle has grown heated.

Attorneys in Washington, D.C., on Friday will argue whether two Stockton-area water districts are entitled to cash damages after the districts - backed by Stockton ratepayers - built an expensive network of tunnels and canals to take water from New Melones Lake, only to see the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation refuse to turn the spigot.

The Stockton East Water District and Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District collectively ask for $37 million to $42 million in damages, money that could pay for projects to help restore this region's diminished groundwater supply.

The districts signed a contract for New Melones water in 1983 and built the new infrastructure over the next decade. When water was not consistently provided, they sued. They initially lost before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims but won on appeal, and now the case has been sent back to the trial court for consideration of damages.

"We signed, in good faith, a contract with the government. And in bad faith the government didn't honor it," said Paul Sanguinetti, a farmer and Stockton East board member. "As individuals, we're all liable when we sign a contract, but I guess the government isn't? It's just a piece of paper - doesn't mean anything?"

In a brief filed Dec. 10, Stockton East attorneys report being "appalled" by the government's "lack of candor" with regard to the facts of the case and go so far as to ask the court to consider "appropriate sanctions."

In its own Dec. 21 filing, the government writes that instead of relying on facts, "Stockton East resorts to inaccurate accusations and self-righteous indignation."

The districts were harmed in several ways by the six-year breach of their contract, according to their attorneys.

Construction of a new pipeline and expansion of the water treatment plant east of the city were delayed. Millions were spent buying backup water from districts on the Stanislaus River. And the lack of additional surface water forced farmers to continue pumping from the ground, undermining the long-term goal of reviving the aquifer.

The government argued that the districts are entitled to zero compensation, claiming:

» The delays in the treatment plant and pipeline were due to lack of funding, not lack of water. (Stockton East counters that the uncertainty caused by the lack of water is what prevented urban agencies from agreeing to pay for those projects.)

» The district agreed to buy water from the Stanislaus River districts in 1997, two years before the contract with the feds was breached. (Stockton East says it had reason to believe as early as 1993 that the feds would not honor the contract.)

» Even if the New Melones water had been made available, it's unclear that any of the farmers east of the city would have spent the money on pumps required to use it. (Stockton East argues the uncertainty over the contract made it difficult to persuade landowners to make that investment.)

Bottom line, Stockton East attorneys wrote: "The idea that Stockton East would build and pay for a $65 million facility knowing that there could be years when that water supply would simply 'vanish' is preposterous."

A U.S. Bureau of Reclamation spokeswoman declined to comment Monday, and U.S. senior trial counsel David A. Harrington did not respond to a voice mail and an email seeking comment.

Attorney Jennifer Spaletta, representing Stockton East, said a decision could come as soon as February. But if damages are awarded, the feds could appeal the case, she said.

Regardless of the money, the lawsuit has already been successful in one way, Sanguinetti said:

Water from New Melones is now being made available.

"It sounds like a lot of money, but the important part of this thing is we're going to end up with a more reliable water supply," he said.